Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that deliveryPayload is validated against outputSchema and that the result is serialized into A2A-style artifacts. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the hire status changes, idempotency, or authorization requirements, leaving some important behaviors undocumented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes new information: the target state, the validation rule, the file digest requirement, and the serialization behavior. There is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow steps: validation, artifact handling, and serialization. It is missing some lifecycle context (e.g., whether this completes the hire), but given the richness of the sibling tool set and the clarity of the input schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between artifactUrls and artifactDigests ('matching SHA256 digests') and the validation behavior of deliveryPayload, which enriches understanding beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provider delivers structured output for an in_progress or input_required hire.' The verb 'delivers' combined with the resource (structured output for a hire) and the specific state conditions makes the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like agentlux_service_complete by specifying the expected hire states and the validation step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by specifying that the tool is for 'in_progress or input_required' hires, which tells the agent when to invoke it. It also includes practical instructions like 'Include artifactUrls and matching SHA256 digests.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.